Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë

I read this as part of a read-along with Julie from My 5 Monkeys and Karen at For What It's Worth and those both link to their great reviews. The ideas here are my own, but they are wonderfully tempered (or emphasised!) by the fact we did weekly discussions of the book, at 10 chapter intervals. This was also done in March. 


I'm also the last to post the review...Oh well.

4
Jane Eyre is the story of (you guessed it) Jane Eyre, an orphan born low and seemingly destined to be treated as such for the entirety of her life. Like any good classic, the opportunity to discuss social differences and prejudices is by no means avoided and even when the story could be considered dated or bizarre, it all comes together at the end.

In terms of the beginning, there isn't a great deal of import, in many ways. Sure it sets up character, background and all that, but  failing (I think) in many classics is that they often feel the need to tell you everything about a person growing up rather than significant events. Maybe it's a period thing; in that people in the past preferred seeing events for themselves and making their own conclusions. Things get better (and more interesting) just before she leaves Gateshead. In some ways, it gets better when she's 18 and her voice starts to sound like her own and the story starts being believable in terms of her being reliable as a narrator.

Something that becomes clear at Gateshead is an idea of feminism. The feeling I got from the institution was that it was set up to make women and girls perfect wives: meek and quiet but educated. They should be practically subservient: inferior, on might say. It drove me insane and, thankfully, annoyed Jane too! One thing mentioned in the discussion was that even the self-assured women in classics want to be seen as conforming to what society expects of them. Jane, on two notable occasions I can think of, demonstrates this anger and fierce pride she has of being herself and being a women. There's this line in A Doll's House by Henrik Ibsen where Christine says that she has important duties, not only to family and marriage, but to herself. For me, it was the same idea. She may be a servant/governess, and she may be socially inferior; but she is still a human- with feelings, hopes and ambitions- and should be treated as such, even by herself. On the occasions I'm thinking of: one concerning Mrs. Reed, the other with Rochester, she asserts such. She transforms from an inferior to position to one of being an equal- which is practically scandalous. Aristocracy, for Victorians, was the idea that the uppers classes were born to rule; and as such should be treated with great respect. In standing for herself, Jane goes against this. However, there is a voice telling me that this is not completely the case since her mother was, formerly, an aristocrat so she has some of  that "right".

The romance is key to this book, since her relationship with Rochester (referred to as R. from now on) underlines the most important elements of the story and cause the main conflicts; asks the most important questions. I was of two minds about R. since he seemed like a great guy half the time, and other times he seemed like a completely different person. Ultimately, the impression I got was that I he couldn't trusted until his physical condition made it necessary for him to rely on people such that he needed their trust in its entirety.

The romance itself was nice though. It wasn't blindly amorous and Jane and R. were fairly vocal about one another with their faults. But the fact they couldn't get together straight away underlines the huge problem in the relationship (in my opinion) that Brontë gave us: R. did not need Jane. That sounds particularly harsh on him, but it's true. He didn't love her any less, not do I think he devalued her, but I think that he would have stifled her with how independent he was and how, in some ways, he was quite selfish. As he says himself, he tries hard to do the good thing, but I think it is in his nature to be somewhat self-centred- which is how Jane was (arguably) until she embraced religion.

Religion, I should say, is also important. There's a use of contrast in this sense since Jane has a very moderate, stereotypically liberal protestant kind of faith. She believes in the grace of God and such things, but she still believes that life is not merely spiritual and know that she can't live her life for a reward at the end of it. To use a recent internet meme, by whose use I feel I'm sullying everything I stand for, YOLO (You Only Live Once). She wants to enjoy her life and live it according to how she wants to live it. If that coincides with a very religious life, so be it. If not, she won't sacrifice herself and what she believes; she truly believes that who she is as a person is the most powerful and important thing about life. At least, that's the feeling I get.

Skipping a whole bunch, I'll give my opinion on the ending. You can basically sum up chapters 20-30 with what the hell just happened? and Who are and what have you done with and to my protagonists? It's weird, though the ending balances it somewhat.

The ending was great, in general. I had a few niggly nuances with the haste of it all, and it was a tad predictable but only in the sense that it is a classic with a happy ending, and Victorian novelists had a very specific idea of what defined happiness. I think what won the ending for me was that Jane seemed to truly be herself. Her life of being a servant in one way or another always seemed to hinder her somewhat. Her position was precarious enough that she had to maintain her manners and be a certain way since society demanded it, lest she be outcast to die. But in her situation at the end, she doesn't have these restraints. She's still polite and humble as a person, but she is free. If she is silent now, it is because she chooses to be, not because she must. She grew up and though she isn't blindly innocent, she is optimistic.

So it's a great book, and- since it need be said- Karen read it as her first (optional) classic so it might be a gateway classic for others who want to read it! Just make sure you read past the first ten chapters!

Top Ten Authors I Wish Would Write Another Book

(Debut authors, authors who seem to have taken a hiatus, OR for those who read classics authors you wish would have written another book before they passed.)

1. Jane Austen (Deceased) I haven't read all of Austen's books, but I think I've read half in less than a year. I feel as though I don't want to finish all her books because then I would dislike knowing there is no more. I could re-read, but there is no feeling like picking up a book for the first time and discovering a great love for it. Also, Austen's kind of my rock. If I have many bad books, I know can find Austen and rediscover a happiness in reading.
2. David Eddings  (Deceased) He wrote my favourite series of books and though he did write others, he never revisited this series. I don't want to say he left things unanswered, because I felt he did round off everything satisfactorily, but there were still other things I wanted to know about, other things I wanted to watch as they grew. I adored these characters and people too much.
3. Erin Morgenstern Though I doubt it happening, I'd love being able to dive back into the Night Circus either by her writing a new book or by an extension/sidestory. I just love this too much.
4. Kathryn Stockett I couldn't say she has taken a break or anything because with the film and her life, I imagine she's been ever so busy. Still, I loved the book and would appreciate another.
5. Michelle Paver I've read a lot of what she has written, and I find her a really engaging author that creates wonderful atmospheres and brilliant antagonists. She has other books, but I don't think I'd like them like I'd like her most recent writings. I actually don't mind what genre she's in. The series I read was YA/Teen Fantasy but another stand alone book was a Ghost Story; I loved both equally.
6. Douglas Adams  (Deceased) I imagine anyone who has read anything by him- either the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, the radio script, or his other series can appreciate his unique wit and way of making people confused without ostracising them. He does it in a friendly, funny way. I always feel sad to think that he died, especially after reading stuff Stephen Fry wrote in his autobiography.
7. Muriel Barbery She's written something else and though I went to buy it, reviews warded me away. They said it wasn't bad, but if you'd read The Elegance of the Hedgehog (which is my favourite book) you might dislike her other book. Still, I may relent at some point since I loved her novel so much.
8. Stieg Larsson  (Deceased) I can think about him without feeling sad: he wrote all the books, left them with his publisher, and died before he could see them published. I wonder how he would feel knowing the response people had to them. And even though he lost me sometimes, he did have an insight into something that doesn't get a lot of press/
9. Anthony Horowitz Now he is neither my favourite writer nor one with remarkable skill: but he's good at coming up with stories and ideas for stories. The only reason I put him here is that he has written 4 books in a five book series but hasn't done the last one yet! When he did he publish number 4? 2008. Grrr. 
10. Stephen Chbosky Perks of Being a Wallflower is a well-known and well respected book, and I'm not asking that he write a sequel or anything, but I can appreciate his ability to write and craft really superbly realistic characters. I adored the book (are you seeing a trend in this list?) and I'd enjoy being able to buy something else by him and have him lose me in a great story I'll recommend to every passer-by.

A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

4
For those unaware of it, this a dystopian novel (in my mind similar to 1984) about a boy Alex (!) who, like many his age, is extremely violent and speaks with rather unintelligible slang. He's an anti-hero in many ways, but he isn't, actually, completely evil. In many ways, this book is also a very different kind of coming of age novel.

First off, I think it's important to get my warnings out of the way. Alex is a violent person, which can be gruesome, but most of us can move past that; but there is also sexual crime, perpetrated by him, in the book. There isn't a great detail, but it's something obvious in the story and he has a very objectifying perception of women.

There is also the "NadSat" talk. It's the slang that the teenagers use and has mainly Russian derivations, while others are just nods towards certain ideas or people. Starting the book, I really struggled with this. I got a dictionary up online to help understand what was happening since he'd speak normally for many a page, but then start using NadSat for almost every other word. It was taking me out of the story so I had to do something. Apparently the author didn't like the NadSat Dictionary idea since he wanted people to actually go away and look up the Russian stems, so that everyone might have a slightly different interpretation, but though I tried, it was too difficult.

As I often find with classics, the story didn't jump out at me so much as the ideas behind it; it was merely the podium on which the ideas had to stand in order to be seen. It isn't bad, though. There's three parts; '1' is life before jail, '2' is life in jail and during "treatment" while '3' is after jail and when he rejoins society. Basically, we get to know Alex and see him commit crimes, then we see his droogies (friends) turn on him so he goes to jail. here, he gets involved in Ludovico treatment- a treatment which breeds an aversion to an act by subjecting someone to unbearable sensations when seeing or thinking of the act. An association-aversion treatment. I'll leave the ending in case you decide to read, but you can sort of guess where it is heading (but I promise you couldn't guess it in it's entirety). Also, each part has 7 sections- appealing to my OCD. The idea was that 21 (culturally an age of maturity) is when Alex finally starts changing since I wouldn't call it maturity.

The main idea that leaps from this novel is the argument of whether it is better to do good things, but only because you have been conditioned for it, or to do as you wouldst, even if you do bad. Alex is turned into an acceptable citizen who will never be violent, never misuse someone, never commit a crime. He is the perfect denizen in the eyes of the Government since he costs no money, and goes about doing his own job. The Prison Chaplain is the main character we have against this. He says it is wrong to take away free will and that if one does bad things then it is acceptable only in the light that it is chosen. Everyone, I think, believes Free Will is paramount, but equally believes that it is wrong to cause or allow evil to fester. It's a hard question because it pits two ideas against one another, and in many ways comes down to the self versus the community. Ultimately though, I couldn't defend taking away Free Will. The right to choice is so fundamentally human and I can't bear elements of subjugation or oppression. Cured Alex is no longer a human because there is more powerful force controlling his ability to function. I think the novel veers you in that direction overall, so I am biased, but I don't think that undermines the argument at all.

There's other ideas present, but to a lesser extent. For example, there's the notion that merely having good taste does not make one good. Ask yourself what kind of music a criminal listens too. Contemporary mainstream, I imagine? Alex, he likes Classical Music. He describes it really beautifully until he starts imaging violent images and his adoration for it humanises him and is one of those things that makes you like him since, subliminally, I think we think someone who likes classical music can't be all bad. In fact, this idea is murmuring throughout the entire novel. Burgess is poetic in his writing, and reading him is no effort at all even if you don't exactly understand. He's written really beautifully, despite the subject matter. There's probably a notion of making bad things look good to fool the majority that you could argue, but that's one level of inference too far for me to be going.

I have some minor issues with the book. There's a noticeable lack of female characters in the book; when they are there they are merely plot devices, it seems. I didn't take this as sexist though, I think Burgess was just trying to draw the parallels to Alex and the Government. Though it doesn't say it, I get the feeling it is a very strong patriarchy- that Alex just isn't as discreet as his superiors. The only hint at this is when they are demonstrating the treatment to the officials and the beautiful woman walks off stage and Alex sees the hunger in the men's eyes.

NadSat is the other issue because, though I expected it, I didn't expect it quite so much so it took a small while to get used to.

Some good things I didn't mention too include how I found the book rather funny. One in particular was at the end of part two and the Chaplain says "God help the lot of us" after the treatment is found successful. He sees what no one else does: that the Government doesn't care who they use it on. He seems to have finally given up since no one can see this obvious fact; it just made me smile. I love Cassandra (Greek) characters. The characterisations are also marvellous considering the little time we see some of them, though perhaps a bit black and white.

This was a really enjoyable book. If you don't read classics (modern or otherwise) then I really recommend trying this one if your interested in trying to read more. It's a typical dystopian, and would probably appeal to fans of 1984, though they may see too many parallels with the two. Once again, a fantastic and pleasantly short read.

Friday Hop Douze

I'm just going to say how happy it makes me to see that the first Follow Friday/TGIF hop of 2012, is my twelfth Friday hop. I love when things are coincidental like that, since this will never happen again!

Go count the number of unread books sitting on your shelf. How many?

I'm proud to say that my count is only around 40 including my physical books and eBooks. I'm kind of proud of this since it's more achievable in thinking about it than the hundreds other people seem to have. I'm one smug so-and-so right now!

But good luck to you all.

Reading Resolutions: What are some of your reading goals for the new year?

I'm not one for resolutions. I tend to not make any and then enjoy myself watching everyone else stumbling around as they try to achieve their own. I'm not a sadist (really!) but my cynical side tells me it's practically impossible to keep up with something for a year. When I have goals for something, they have developed more organically and gradually as time goes on. But I'll give you my organic goals.

•     Read 50 books. This is with Goodreads and I'm sticking with the same target as last year because it is achievable and I don't want to be stressed with reading, blogging and school all vying for time.
•     Mix up reading. I have system of reading books of three different types in order. The first book of this must be a book I've been requested to review, then the second and third books must be a Fantasy/YA/Dystopia then a Classic (or Classic first then Fantasy/YA/Dystopia), It allows me to choose what I want to read (in a way) but still keep my productivity high in terms of reading everything.
•     Get a Kindle. I'm getting to a point where I feel a kindle is practically necessary in order for me to read eBooks that I want and to have an easy way to read with me all the time. Also, free classics is nice! So I have a Kindle Plan. In the Interest of being healthy, I'm trying to eat less chocolate and the best way for me to do that is to not be allowed to buy chocolate or sweets for myself, or knowledgably have them bought for me. If at any point i am tempted to get any, then the money I would spend is to be taken and put towards a Kindle Fund. Either I'll get the Kindle, since I'm weak and find myself constantly tempted, or frugality will win and I'll stop buying chocolate for myself. Or I could not get a Kindle, but still buy truckloads of sweets. I try not to think that is an option. I find that if I have a feasible and desirable target like this, I should do better in achieving something.

Thanks for hopping by! Leave a comment if you want, and I'll be sure to hop back and comment if I can.

Also, if you're a non-follower, Happy New Year to you, since I can't have possibly wished you one!